Shouldn't solar panels suck up the heat & help w/ "global warming?" Have any predictions from the "climate change" alarmists come true yet? There are hundreds if not thousands that haven't and now that we're heading into a grand solar minimum, their predictions are even less likely to pan out hence their increased hysteria of late IMHO. It's all just another power grab by the elitist/NWO/globalist crowd. They've admitted it.
our senses are drying up?lol So now that the water is down at the Hoover damn they can fix it from exploding from all that water that is coming. It really is all the satellites that are up in the orbit around the earth that is causing the problems. All that crap up there is radiating the sun even more and how do we know that isn't causing the problem? Scientists? We will probably have to take our Buick's off the road all that tire smoke is the problem!!
What was going on with Lake Mead in the '30s was that it was filling; the Hoover Dam was fully completed in 1936, but Lake Mead had started to fill before the dam was totally finished.
So by this metric, a hybrid would be worse than either ICE or electric? I think that no matter how you slice it, the illusion of an electric vehicle being 100% “green” because in its end use state it doesn’t emit emissions like a hybrid or gas is exactly what the manufacturers of these vehicles want. The manufacturers are in it for one thing - profit! So with tree huggers abound, and the “climate change” warriors pushing and thinking electric vehicles are green, someone is fixing to make some big bucks!
I can't answer that, Bob. Out of the three choices which is the worst would depend on which uses more energy to get the same result as the other two. I would like to see an accurate comparison/calculation of the energy burned to charge an electric car enough to drive 100000 miles vs a gas job driving 100000 miles. I suppose the total $$ amount would tell the story fairly accurately.
1950 Las Vegas population was 35,000 people. Today 2,772,000 residents.... this does not take in to account the tourist demand on water infrastructure. Lake Mead feeds far more than Vegas. Using that as an example of climate change is beyond foolish... Now go back to NY where this thread belongs
I think you also have to take into account the effects of manufacturing of the vehicle in that analysis. My understanding based on some studies (biased?) is that it takes 50-70k mi. of driving an electric before the environmental impact just from manufacturing it vs. an ICE car becomes a net positive. Given that, as with the evolution of nerly everything, I think the industry will learn how to close that gap. 1st you need to learn how make something and then can start learning how to make it cleaner/cheaper/better/etc. Just look back at the evolution of flat screen TV's or ink jet printers.
Interesting comment regarding energy production, whether it's petroleum based, or so called green based. Here's an example of what's required just to obtain currently used battery raw materials. Chile has the largest known lithium deposits by far, followed by Australia. There's some in Manitoba where I live. however most known deposits are located far from any year round accessible roads within precambrian granite rock. The costs associated with building new roads and blasting that rock could be tremendous. Extracting one ton of lithium also requires up to 500,000 gallons of water. There's also a small herd of endangered caribou in eastern Manitoba which could forestall development. Much to consider before any mines begin production.
I hear Afghanistan has large lithium deposits.......go figure. But the cobalt being mined in the Congo is done by kids....there is a CNN video linked below....i won't describe what goes on Peace WildBill https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2018/05/africa/congo-cobalt-dirty-energy-intl/
I'd mentioned that earlier - We discovered that and have now handed it over to the Xhineze who also just bought a lithium mining co. in Mexico and who are building a rail line to Europe through Iran so would be easy to build a spur down into Afghanistan to haul out the lithium. I will give the Xhineze credit - They can build rail lines seemingly like nobody else (of course they built the western leg of our 1st transcontinental line). Granted they don't have to wait for permitting or environmental impact studies, but Xhina went from zero high speed rail to their country being covered w/it in less time than it took here to even design/permit/etc. the LA to SF HS rail boondoggle that now isn't even going to be completed and was 4x over budget by the time the now abandoned construction had barely begun.
A guy on YouTube called Engineering Explained has a great video on this. I believe his conclusion was that generally EVs will always be net neutral or negative emissions compared to ICE cars, depending on how long they're driven. The manufacturing process does produce a fair amount of greenhouse gasses, but over time it's offset by not actively emitting them while driving. There's also lots of research going into the recycling of lithium-ion batteries which will further reduce the environmental impact. I try to not get too caught up in the whole ICE vs EV argument. I think EVs are an excellent step towards cleaner transportation, and ultimately all we can do is wait for those steps to add up. It'll never be fixed overnight and I think people forget about that when they hear about how new green technologies may affect the environment in different ways than we're used to. I also find it very frustrating that there's all this concern in regards to vehicle emissions, and yet car companies keep pumping out massive lease-mobile SUVs getting a whopping 15mpg at best for Joe Shmoe to drive to work and back everyday without a shred of self-awareness. Not even getting into the environmental impact constantly producing these new cars has, it astonishes me that after all these years of advancements in engine tech we're still hovering around the same average fuel efficiency figures as they were in the '80s. All of us here keeping our old boats on the road are probably doing better for the environment than a lot of people simply by keeping our old cars instead of always demanding new. At least, that's how I reconcile it. My '75 is probably one of the biggest middle fingers to efficiency ever produced, but yet here I am getting the same gas mileage as some SUVs on the road today 45 years later, and without the added environmental impact that comes with the production of a new car. So when it comes to laws like this one planning to ban the sale of gas vehicles, I see it a lot more as lip service. We have the technology to make much more efficient vehicles, and I believe it's much more palatable for most people to start off with incentivizing the sale and use of more efficient vehicles before jumping straight to the end of the line. Why not start there? For the last few decades efficiency has been the key focus of car manufacturers. It's a shame those gains have been used to continue making huge vehicles that burn slightly less gas than before.
In the case of Diesels, the emissions "technology" has killed the fuel economy so while there's less emissions, they're burning more fuel per mile so how much benefit is there really?
I was considering manufacturing as part of the energy burned, although I didn't type it out. I would question 50k as a "breakeven". If the manufacturing process took that long the cars would be prohibitly expensive. Do you have a source for that number?
Right my fathers Dodge 3500 got 16 MPG stock and now gets 20 MPG with the emissions deleted. Which is better for the environment? Burning extra fuel or a little more emissions?
Not true with big rigs. Improved aerodynamics coupled with engine efficiency and lower numerical rear gear ratios have actually increased their mpg numbers. In the 15+ years I've worked for my employer, we've seen corporate mpg numbers improve by as much as 25%! I'm also acquainted with a few Professional Drivers and Owner Operators who are achieving 10+ mpg while pulling up to 80,000 lb loads. One of them is doing so while running 65-70 mph!! Another Wisconsin based company driver regularly averages between 10 and 10.3 mpg during the summer while averaging between 55 to 58 mph. In my 25+ years working around big rigs, I've seen the mpg standard increase from 6 mpg to 8-9 mpg while emissions have been reduced to almost zero. Most of the problems associated with earlier emissions control and DPF systems have been solved.
